The idea that America is less prepared to face China because of two decades of counterinsurgency warfare is completely wrong.
I occasionally read asides in articles on America's preparations for an era of great power competition that say that fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan harmed America's ability to face China and Russia now.
One, that ignores the fact that we needed to win the wars were in and not lose them because we valued preparing for a future potential war.
Two, it ignores the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 which absolutely highlighted the ability of the American military to slash through an enemy at high speed while inflicting disproportional casualties.
But most importantly, the charge assumes that America would have prepared for fighting China absent the war on terror campaigns after 9/11. That is a highly unlikely assumption.
On the eve of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, America was a decade into the post-Cold War "peace dividend" that gave America undermanned and under-resourced units to begin the war on Islamist terror.
Two decades of warfare gave us new weapons and equipment plus combat-experienced officers and NCOs.
It also unbalanced our military, as our Air Force and ground forces lost conventional warfare capabilities and practice while focused on fighting insurgents and terrorists.
But rebalancing toward training for conventional warfare has been going on for a decade now, really, as the Afghanistan surges receded. Although don't forget that President Obama basically declared a "Ten-Year Rule" at the beginning of his presidency to hobble that shift.
Once rebalanced, with war reserve stocks restored and logistics improved, America will have a much better military than if the "peace dividend" had gone on two more decades.
But the question of whether America ended Obama's ten-year rule in time is still open.
